The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

Allegory is one thing. Even The Green Mile was an allegory of Christ. But straight blasphemy is quite another. But as was said, the reason why idiots get away with this is because Christians won't riot and kill ambassadors over this.

11-27-2012, 10:51 PM

NJCardFan

Quote:

Originally Posted by m00

3) I just asked a question, trying to understand why people are seriously offended. Your "translation" is entirely your own projections and hangups.

You supported Obama during the election hence my opinion as to why you don't see a problem with this.

11-27-2012, 11:43 PM

SarasotaRepub

I heard that DU is considering a "Church of Obama" Forum...

Really!!! I'm series!!!! :friendly_wink:

11-28-2012, 03:02 AM

Chex

What makes me angrier than the picture is that there are "Christians" who refuse to see it as blasphemy. I literally just got out of an argument with some lefty who was totally okay with it and told me I'm being arrogant, because art and religion are "different". Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by m00

open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a saviour, or others see him as a saviour / etc)... would you still have a problem with it?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

It's both... If it was ironic, there would be some clearer indication that "this is what Obama believes"/"this is what the left believes". Instead it's a disturbingly sincere effort at elevating him to Christ's position.

11-28-2012, 03:50 AM

Janice

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man >>>

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1

-----------------------------

I say - let them worship this vile creature. Or mock the crucifixion. Its only natural (liberal). And they shall receive the just recompense of their reward.

11-28-2012, 10:09 AM

Odysseus

Quote:

Originally Posted by m00

open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a saviour, or others see him as a saviour / etc)... would you still have a problem with it?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

It's both. The image, at face value, is making the statement that Obama is Christ. In that regard, it's a form of idolatry that is guaranteed to offend believing Christians. If it was meant to be ironic, it fails, because it's too similar to the stuff that's done with a straight face by other Obama worshipers. It may be suffering from the difficulty of parodying something that's over the top to begin with, but if you have to explain it, it fails. And, it's a crappy painting, to boot.